Bridging Borders: Can International Mediation Serve Local Peace

The mediation efforts undertaken by Doha in the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the March 23 movement (M23) rebel group have raised substantial criticism. These concerns are not without merit, as they reflect apprehensions regarding the externalization of peace processes, the marginalization of African-led initiatives, and the potential normalization of armed non-state actors through diplomatic recognition.

Nevertheless, such critiques often fail to fully account for the broader structural transformation in contemporary conflict resolution, particularly within an increasingly interconnected international system. The involvement of non-traditional or local actors such as Qatar signals a shift in the modalities of peacemaking. Where diplomatic engagement is no longer the sole domain of proximate or traditional powers, but instead, it is now shaped by a diversified set of global stakeholders. This evolution is emblematic of a multipolar diplomatic environment in which smaller states with strategic leverage and reputational capital play intermediary roles in conflicts far beyond their immediate geographic spheres.

As such, while it is important to scrutinize the implications of Doha’s mediation, it is equally crucial to situate it within this changing architecture of international diplomacy, assessing both its limitations and its potential to contribute meaningfully to durable peace.

The key question is not whether external mediation in this case, Doha, is inherently good or bad, but rather: how can such mediation be leveraged responsibly to serve the interests of peace, justice, and the people most affected?

1. Beyond Geography: Rethinking Who Gets to Mediate

Historically, conflict mediation has largely been the domain of regional actors and traditional Western powers. For example, during the Bosnian War (1992–1995), which erupted following the collapse of Yugoslavia, the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) played a pivotal role in negotiating the Dayton Accords, which ultimately brought the conflict to a close. In Asia, a notable instance of regional mediation occurred in 1991 with the Paris Agreements on Cambodia, brokered by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Similarly, in Central America, the conflicts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua were mediated in 1983 through the Contadora Group comprising Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Panama. In the Middle East, the 1978 Camp David Accords, led by the United States, successfully mediated a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. More recently, the accord between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, signed in Washington in June 2025, follows this tradition of Western-led peace efforts.

The mediation efforts currently being undertaken by Doha in the DRC-M23 conflict have faced criticism, particularly due to Qatar's status as a non-regional and non-traditional Western actor. Critics argue that regional actors, whether states or organizations, are best positioned to lead mediation efforts due to their geographical proximity, cultural familiarity, and historical ties to the parties involved. In the case of the DRC, institutions such as the African Union (AU), the East African Community (EAC), Angola, or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are typically seen as more legitimate and effective mediators.

Nevertheless, the involvement of a non-Western, non-regional actor like Qatar reflects a broader evolution in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. As international relations become increasingly interconnected, new actors are emerging as credible mediators, often bringing fresh approaches and fewer historical burdens of imperialism. While the legitimacy and efficacy of such mediators should be scrutinized, their contributions cannot be dismissed outright.

Importantly, any mediation effort, regardless of who leads it, must prioritize the interests and welfare of the victims of conflict. The benefits for the parties involved must be clearly defined, mutually respected, and grounded in a commitment to justice and sustainable peace. In an era of shifting diplomatic landscapes, the focus must remain not on who mediates, but on how mediation can be used responsibly and effectively to end suffering and build lasting peace.

2. Balancing External Engagement with Regional Ownership

In an increasingly interconnected world, effective conflict resolution requires the collaborative engagement of both traditional and non-traditional mediators. Rather than viewing emerging actors as intruders in a historically closed domain, their involvement should be seen as an opportunity to address the shortcomings of conventional approaches. Traditional mediators, including Western states, local governments, and regional organizations, have played central roles in past peace efforts, but each comes with inherent limitations. Western powers often carry the weight of geopolitical agendas or neo-imperialist legacies, undermining perceptions of neutrality. Local states, while proximate and contextually informed, may struggle with partiality or direct entanglement in the conflict. Regional organizations, though endowed with legitimacy, tend to move slowly due to bureaucratic processes, and their effectiveness can be hindered if a key party is not a member or disengages from the institutional framework.

In this context, non-traditional mediators such as Qatar bring fresh diplomatic strategies, neutrality, and often fewer historical burdens. They can offer flexibility, innovative formats for negotiation, and serve as neutral platforms when traditional actors are either compromised or ineffective. Thus, rather than displacing existing mechanisms, these emerging mediators should be integrated into a more plural and adaptive architecture of peacebuilding, where the strengths of one actor can compensate for the weaknesses of another. For instance, there is documented evidence of non-traditional mediators playing pivotal roles in high-profile peace processes, such as Norway’s facilitation of the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization ( Council of Foreign Relations, 2020), and the Vatican’s discreet involvement in restoring diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba in 2014 (The Guardian, 2014).

3. Inclusion as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Peace for Longstanding Solutions

Any credible mediation process aimed at resolving conflict must involve not only the governments of the parties concerned but also civil society actors. In the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC), this requires the active participation of Congolese civil society, local communities, and crucially the victims themselves. A persistent weakness in traditional mediation efforts is the lack of political will among elites to engage in inclusive dialogue.

In the DRC, the central government’s limited control over significant portions of the national territory has contributed to a widespread sense of neglect among the population(Bertelsmann, 2024). Consequently, many Congolese citizens view peace agreements as detached from their everyday realities.

For mediation to achieve lasting results, it must go beyond short-term conflict management and address the deeper structural causes of instability, such as poor governance, forced displacement, and chronic economic exclusion. Only through the genuine inclusion of those most affected can mediation processes gain legitimacy, foster accountability, and contribute to enduring peace.

4. Accountability in Mediation: Avoiding the Whitewashing of Armed Groups

Beyond the question of the legitimacy of non-traditional mediators centers on the perceived legitimization of rebel groups, specifically the M23. On one hand, engaging with armed groups in peace talks can risk setting a dangerous precedent, where other factions may be incentivized to resort to violence as a means to gain political recognition or bargaining power. Such an outcome would undermine the fundamental objective of lasting peace, which is the aspiration of any sovereign state.

On the other hand, avoiding engagement altogether with groups that continue to inflict harm on civilians raises serious concerns: how can a meaningful peace agreement or accountability process occur without involving the very actors responsible for the violence? Nevertheless, any state entering negotiations with armed groups must maintain a position of strength, ensuring that dialogue does not inadvertently reward criminality but rather paves the way for justice, disarmament, and sustainable peace.

5. Charting a Path Forward: Conditions for Responsible Mediation

To ensure that third-party mediators, particularly non-traditional actors, play a constructive and effective role in peace processes, several key principles must be upheld. First, transparency is essential. Mediation efforts should be conducted with clearly defined objectives, inclusive frameworks, and ongoing, open communication with the public, especially the communities most directly affected by conflict. Transparency fosters trust and legitimacy, helping to counter skepticism about external involvement.

Second, local ownership must be a central focus. Rather than directing the process, third-party mediators should act as facilitators who empower national and grassroots stakeholders, including civil society organizations, women’s groups, youth representatives, and victims’ associations, to shape negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction. This approach helps ensure that the process addresses grassroots concerns and generates solutions rooted in local realities.

Third, robust accountability mechanisms should be integrated throughout the mediation process. These include monitoring compliance with agreements, documenting and addressing human rights violations, and upholding justice and reconciliation efforts without compromising them. Without accountability, peace agreements risk becoming fragile or merely symbolic.

Fourth, regional coordination must not be sidelined. Third-party mediators should complement and strengthen regional and continental initiatives, such as those led by the African Union, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), or the East African Community (EAC), which often hold vital mandates and possess deep contextual understanding. Respecting and engaging these regional actors ensures that mediation efforts align with broader political dynamics and contribute to sustainable solutions.

Finally, the principles of neutrality and respect for international law must guide any mediator’s engagement. This ensures that peace processes do not inadvertently legitimize impunity or reward violence, but rather prioritize human rights, justice, and long-term stability.

Importantly, these principles do not seek to eliminate or undermine traditional mediation tools and actors. Instead, they aim to enhance and adapt the overall peacebuilding system in a rapidly evolving international context. The inclusion of non-traditional mediators reflects the diversification of diplomatic actors in a multipolar world and offers opportunities to fill gaps where traditional mechanisms have struggled. When combined with established regional and international efforts, these new approaches can create a more comprehensive, inclusive, and effective architecture for conflict resolution, one that ultimately serves the interests of peace and the affected populations more fully.

6.Conclusion

As we understand, whether mediation is initiated by traditional or unconventional actors, their efforts must be harnessed to promote peace, justice, and the interests of the affected populations. With global diplomacy becoming increasingly diverse, the emergence of non-traditional mediators marks a significant shift in the architecture of peacemaking. However, for such mediation to be truly effective, it must be guided by key principles: transparency, inclusive participation, accountability, regional coordination, and strict adherence to international law.

These principles are not intended to replace traditional mediation efforts but to address the gaps they often struggle to fill. Mediation must prioritize the lived realities of affected communities, especially in contexts like the DRC, where state legitimacy and territorial control remain fragile.

Ultimately, the success of mediation does not depend on who leads the process, but rather on how it is structured and whether it addresses the root causes of conflict. Only then can external mediation evolve from a mere diplomatic exercise into a genuine instrument for lasting peace and justice. 

References

AP News. (2014, December 17). Pope played crucial role in US-Cuba rapprochement. https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-us-cuba-diplomatic-ties-63b8417065c945e7a26c5aecc5857e52

Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2024). BTI 2024 country report — Congo, Democratic Republic. https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/

Council on Foreign Relations. (2020, December 22). Norway: From mediator to persecutor of Israel. https://www.cfr.org/blog/norway-mediator-persecutor-israel

Council on Foreign Relations. (2025, July 24). Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Global Conflict Tracker. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/violence-democratic-republic-congo

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2014, October 10). Norway's involvement in the peace process in the Middle East. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/involvement/id420034/

Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe. (1995). Dayton Peace Agreement: Conflict prevention and resolution. OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. https://www.osce.org/mission-to-bosnia-and-herzegovina/conflict-prevention-and-resolution 

Radio France Internationale. (2025, June 6). Congo‑Kinshasa: Qatar offers proposal in stalled peace talks between DRC and M23. allAfrica.com. https://allafrica.com/stories/202506060285.html

The Guardian. (2014, December 17). Pope Francis and the Vatican played key roles in US-Cuba thaw, leaders reveal. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/17/us-cuba-pope-francis-key-role